Fucking moron... Why do you hate your country so much?

nah_@nah.net schrieb:

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/kill__dont_capture_opedcolumnists_ralph_peters.htm

KILL, DON'T CAPTURE

HOW TO SOLVE OUR PRISONER PROBLEM

July 10, 2006 -- THE British military defines experience as the
ability to recognize a mistake the second time you make it. By that
standard, we should be very experienced in dealing with captured
terrorists, since we've made the same mistake again and again.
Violent Islamist extremists must be killed on the battlefield. Only in
the rarest cases should they be taken prisoner. Few have serious
intelligence value. And, once captured, there's no way to dispose of
them.

Boy oh boy oh boy!!!! Can we shoot Americans on sight too?

their country is fucking up the environment... and Americans have used
nuclear weapons against civilians TWICE...

and they don't respect agreements they force us to sign...

Fucking moron... Why do you hate your country so much? Don't you think
that 95% of the planet isn't enought already?!?!?!

nah_@nah.net wrote:

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/kill__dont_capture_opedcolumnists_ralph_peters.htm

KILL, DON'T CAPTURE

HOW TO SOLVE OUR PRISONER PROBLEM

July 10, 2006 -- THE British military defines experience as the
ability to recognize a mistake the second time you make it. By that
standard, we should be very experienced in dealing with captured
terrorists, since we've made the same mistake again and again.
Violent Islamist extremists must be killed on the battlefield. Only in
the rarest cases should they be taken prisoner. Few have serious
intelligence value. And, once captured, there's no way to dispose of
them.

Killing terrorists during a conflict isn't barbaric or immoral - or
even illegal. We've imposed rules upon ourselves that have no
historical or judicial precedent. We haven't been stymied by others,
but by ourselves.

The oft-cited, seldom-read Geneva and Hague Conventions define legal
combatants as those who visibly identify themselves by wearing
uniforms or distinguishing insignia (the latter provision covers
honorable partisans - but no badges or armbands, no protection). Those
who wear civilian clothes to ambush soldiers or collect intelligence
are assassins and spies - beyond the pale of law.

SO PEOPL YOU THINK ARE DRESSED LIKE ORDINARY PEOPLE CAN BE SHOT DEAD IF
YOU THINK THEY ARE TERRORISTS

IS IT OK FOR MUSLIMS TO DO THE SAME TO YOUR KIDS IF THEY THINK YOUR
KIDS LOOK LIKE TERRORISTS

as it stands we are almost there already and its a free for all ,
anything goes

Traditionally, those who masquerade as civilians in order to kill
legal combatants have been executed promptly, without trial. Severity,
not sloppy leftist pandering, kept warfare within some decent bounds
at least part of the time. But we have reached a point at which the
rules apply only to us, while our enemies are permitted unrestricted
freedom.

The present situation encourages our enemies to behave wantonly, while
crippling our attempts to deal with terror.

Consider today's norm: A terrorist in civilian clothes can explode an
IED, killing and maiming American troops or innocent civilians, then
demand humane treatment if captured - and the media will step in as
his champion. A disguised insurgent can shoot his rockets, throw his
grenades, empty his magazines, kill and wound our troops, then, out of
ammo, raise his hands and demand three hots and a cot while he invents
tales of abuse.

Conferring unprecedented legal status upon these murderous
transnational outlaws is unnecessary, unwise and ultimately suicidal.
It exalts monsters. And it provides the anti-American pack with living
vermin to anoint as victims, if not heroes.

Isn't it time we gave our critics what they're asking for? Let's solve
the "unjust" imprisonment problem, once and for all. No more
Guantanamos! Every terrorist mission should be a suicide mission. With
our help.

We need to clarify the rules of conflict. But integrity and courage
have fled Washington. Nobody will state bluntly that we're in a fight
for our lives, that war is hell, and that we must do what it takes to
win.

Our enemies will remind us of what's necessary, though. When we've
been punished horribly enough, we'll come to our senses and do what
must be done.

This isn't an argument for a murderous rampage, but its opposite. We
must kill our enemies with discrimination. But we do need to kill
them. A corpse is a corpse: The media's rage dissipates with the
stench. But an imprisoned terrorist is a strategic liability.

Nor should we ever mistreat captured soldiers or insurgents who adhere
to standing conventions. On the contrary, we should enforce policies
that encourage our enemies to identify themselves according to the
laws of war. Ambiguity works to their advantage, never to ours.

Our policy toward terrorists and insurgents in civilian clothing
should be straightforward and public: Surrender before firing a shot
or taking hostile action toward our troops, and we'll regard you as a
legal prisoner. But once you've pulled a trigger, thrown a grenade or
detonated a bomb, you will be killed. On the battlefield and on the
spot.

Isn't that common sense? It also happens to conform to the traditional
conduct of war between civilized nations. Ignorant of history, we've
talked ourselves into folly.

And by the way: How have the terrorists treated the uniformed American
soldiers they've captured? According to the Geneva Convention?

Sadly, even our military has been infected by political correctness.
Some of my former peers will wring their hands and babble about
"winning hearts and minds." But we'll never win the hearts and minds
of terrorists. And if we hope to win the minds, if not the hearts, of
foreign populations, we must be willing to kill the violent, lawless
fraction of a fraction of a percent of the population determined to
terrorize the rest.

Ravaged societies crave and need strict order. Soft policies may
appear to work in the short term, but they fail overwhelmingly in the
longer term. Wherever we've tried sweetness and light in Iraq, it has
only worked as long as our troops were present - after which the
terrorists returned and slaughtered the beneficiaries of our good
intentions. If you wish to defend the many, you must be willing to
kill the few.

For now, we're stuck with a situation in which the hardcore terrorists
in Guantanamo are "innocent victims" even to our fair-weather allies.
In Iraq, our troops capture bomb-makers only to learn they've been
dumped back on the block.

It is not humane to spare fanatical murderers. It is not humane to
play into our enemy's hands. And it is not humane to endanger our
troops out of political correctness.

Instead of worrying over trumped-up atrocities in Iraq (the media give
credence to any claim made by terrorists), we should stop apologizing
and take a stand. That means firm rules for the battlefield, not
Gumby-speak intended to please critics who'll never be satisfied by
anything America does.

The ultimate act of humanity in the War on Terror is to win. To do so,
we must kill our enemies wherever we encounter them. He who commits an
act of terror forfeits every right he once possessed.

--
oderint dum metuant

SO PEOPL YOU THINK ARE DRESSED LIKE ORDINARY PEOPLE CAN BE SHOT DEAD IF
YOU THINK THEY ARE TERRORISTS

nah_@nah.net wrote:

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/kill__dont_capture_opedcolumnists_ralph_peters.htm

KILL, DON'T CAPTURE

HOW TO SOLVE OUR PRISONER PROBLEM

July 10, 2006 -- THE British military defines experience as the
ability to recognize a mistake the second time you make it. By that
standard, we should be very experienced in dealing with captured
terrorists, since we've made the same mistake again and again.
Violent Islamist extremists must be killed on the battlefield. Only in
the rarest cases should they be taken prisoner. Few have serious
intelligence value. And, once captured, there's no way to dispose of
them.

Killing terrorists during a conflict isn't barbaric or immoral - or
even illegal. We've imposed rules upon ourselves that have no
historical or judicial precedent. We haven't been stymied by others,
but by ourselves.

The oft-cited, seldom-read Geneva and Hague Conventions define legal
combatants as those who visibly identify themselves by wearing
uniforms or distinguishing insignia (the latter provision covers
honorable partisans - but no badges or armbands, no protection). Those
who wear civilian clothes to ambush soldiers or collect intelligence
are assassins and spies - beyond the pale of law.

SO PEOPL YOU THINK ARE DRESSED LIKE ORDINARY PEOPLE CAN BE SHOT DEAD IF
YOU THINK THEY ARE TERRORISTS

IS IT OK FOR MUSLIMS TO DO THE SAME TO YOUR KIDS IF THEY THINK YOUR
KIDS LOOK LIKE TERRORISTS

as it stands we are almost there already and its a free for all ,
anything goes

Traditionally, those who masquerade as civilians in order to kill
legal combatants have been executed promptly, without trial. Severity,
not sloppy leftist pandering, kept warfare within some decent bounds
at least part of the time. But we have reached a point at which the
rules apply only to us, while our enemies are permitted unrestricted
freedom.

The present situation encourages our enemies to behave wantonly, while
crippling our attempts to deal with terror.

Consider today's norm: A terrorist in civilian clothes can explode an
IED, killing and maiming American troops or innocent civilians, then
demand humane treatment if captured - and the media will step in as
his champion. A disguised insurgent can shoot his rockets, throw his
grenades, empty his magazines, kill and wound our troops, then, out of
ammo, raise his hands and demand three hots and a cot while he invents
tales of abuse.

Conferring unprecedented legal status upon these murderous
transnational outlaws is unnecessary, unwise and ultimately suicidal.
It exalts monsters. And it provides the anti-American pack with living
vermin to anoint as victims, if not heroes.

Isn't it time we gave our critics what they're asking for? Let's solve
the "unjust" imprisonment problem, once and for all. No more
Guantanamos! Every terrorist mission should be a suicide mission. With
our help.

We need to clarify the rules of conflict. But integrity and courage
have fled Washington. Nobody will state bluntly that we're in a fight
for our lives, that war is hell, and that we must do what it takes to
win.

Our enemies will remind us of what's necessary, though. When we've
been punished horribly enough, we'll come to our senses and do what
must be done.

This isn't an argument for a murderous rampage, but its opposite. We
must kill our enemies with discrimination. But we do need to kill
them. A corpse is a corpse: The media's rage dissipates with the
stench. But an imprisoned terrorist is a strategic liability.

Nor should we ever mistreat captured soldiers or insurgents who adhere
to standing conventions. On the contrary, we should enforce policies
that encourage our enemies to identify themselves according to the
laws of war. Ambiguity works to their advantage, never to ours.

Our policy toward terrorists and insurgents in civilian clothing
should be straightforward and public: Surrender before firing a shot
or taking hostile action toward our troops, and we'll regard you as a
legal prisoner. But once you've pulled a trigger, thrown a grenade or
detonated a bomb, you will be killed. On the battlefield and on the
spot.

Isn't that common sense? It also happens to conform to the traditional
conduct of war between civilized nations. Ignorant of history, we've
talked ourselves into folly.

And by the way: How have the terrorists treated the uniformed American
soldiers they've captured? According to the Geneva Convention?

Sadly, even our military has been infected by political correctness.
Some of my former peers will wring their hands and babble about
"winning hearts and minds." But we'll never win the hearts and minds
of terrorists. And if we hope to win the minds, if not the hearts, of
foreign populations, we must be willing to kill the violent, lawless
fraction of a fraction of a percent of the population determined to
terrorize the rest.

Ravaged societies crave and need strict order. Soft policies may
appear to work in the short term, but they fail overwhelmingly in the
longer term. Wherever we've tried sweetness and light in Iraq, it has
only worked as long as our troops were present - after which the
terrorists returned and slaughtered the beneficiaries of our good
intentions. If you wish to defend the many, you must be willing to
kill the few.

For now, we're stuck with a situation in which the hardcore terrorists
in Guantanamo are "innocent victims" even to our fair-weather allies.
In Iraq, our troops capture bomb-makers only to learn they've been
dumped back on the block.

It is not humane to spare fanatical murderers. It is not humane to
play into our enemy's hands. And it is not humane to endanger our
troops out of political correctness.

Instead of worrying over trumped-up atrocities in Iraq (the media give
credence to any claim made by terrorists), we should stop apologizing
and take a stand. That means firm rules for the battlefield, not
Gumby-speak intended to please critics who'll never be satisfied by
anything America does.

The ultimate act of humanity in the War on Terror is to win. To do so,
we must kill our enemies wherever we encounter them. He who commits an
act of terror forfeits every right he once possessed.

--
oderint dum metuant

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/kill__dont_capture_opedcolumn
ists_ralph_peters.htm

KILL, DON'T CAPTURE

HOW TO SOLVE OUR PRISONER PROBLEM
--------------------------------------------------------------------

KILL! KILL! ITS THE GODLY WAY: